FCC to Ban DD-WRT with new rule -- public comment

Discussion in 'Networking & Security' started by lordsegan, Oct 27, 2015.

  1. lordsegan

    lordsegan Gawd

    Messages:
    624
    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2004
    There is a proposed FCC rule that would ban DD-WRT and other custom firmware. It might even eventually be used to limit open source operating systems on phones and even laptops!

    Please comment to the FCC:

    https://www.federalregister.gov/art...-time-for-comments-on-equipment-authorization

    See: https://libreplanet.org/wiki/Save_WiFi

    See: http://arstechnica.com/information-...ware-is-still-legal-under-certain-conditions/

    See: Rule would specifically require manufacturers prove "how the device is protected from ‘flashing’ and the installation of third-party firmware such as DD-WRT.”"
     
  2. Erasmus354

    Erasmus354 [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    9,394
    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2004
    The rule doesn't ban DD-WRT. It bans routers being able to be taken out of compliance with the regulated frequencies, modulation, and power levels. The simplest way to do this for manufacturers would be to not allow third party firmware, but if they can prevent it in another way that works too.
     
  3. lordsegan

    lordsegan Gawd

    Messages:
    624
    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2004
    Actually, IMAL, and you are wrong.

    From the FCC directly: "What prevents third parties from loading non-US versions of the software/firmware on the device? Describe in detail how the device is protected from “flashing” and the installation of third-party firmware such as DD-WRT"
    https://apps.fcc.gov/kdb/GetAttachm... Device Security v01r02&tracking_number=39498

    Is it possible that there is "another way" to confirm that only approved DD-WRT firmware is uploaded? Sure. Does that cost a ton of money that manufacturers will not spend? Yes.
     
  4. Erasmus354

    Erasmus354 [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    9,394
    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2004
    From FCC Spokesperson Robert Meich:

    "Manufacturers could choose to ban software mods, but if they have a different solution that achieves the same end (preventing RF mods that take the device out of compliance) that would be acceptable"

    Further clarification in the Ars article you linked:

    "The DD-WRT reference is understood to mean that “an applicant seeking to certify a 5GHz Wi-Fi router would have to ‘describe in detail how the device is protected from ‘flashing’ and the installation of third-party firmware such as DD-WRT’ that would modify the RF parameters in a way that would take the device out of compliance and cause harmful interference,” the FCC told Ars."
     
  5. bman212121

    bman212121 [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,533
    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2011
    From the document:

    If a maker does want to allow open source software they can, but they must stay so in their certification and provide the details how they will allow this without allowing an authorized user to operate the device out of spec. So the companies that are advertising you can put DD-WRT on their devices would need to actually have it certified rather than just taking certified hardware then allowing someone to use it however they please.
     
  6. scobar

    scobar .

    Messages:
    34,064
    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2001
    Well, I dislike DD-WRT so would be OK with a ban :)
     
  7. goodcooper

    goodcooper [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    9,771
    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    what don't you like about it?
     
  8. *The*Dark*Lord*

    *The*Dark*Lord* [H]Lite

    Messages:
    102
    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2013
    ^ DD-WRT is only for the non tech challenged people :)
     
  9. tangoseal

    tangoseal [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,703
    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    As an Amateur radio operator interference given off from spurious or illegal transmissions is an awful thing to experience especially when trying to communicate with other people. Since amateur radio is allowed to operator on the 2.4ghz spectrum as well as 5ghz and beyond we try to always make our signals as clean as possible. There is absolutely NO gain in using an off frequency outside of the already allocated channels. You cause interference and noise with pirate radio frequencies. It can be a serious problem.

    Like CB operators who are by law limited to 4 watts of RF output and yet they go and run 2500 watts of power and now your LCD or Plasma TV is going crazy when you paid good money for it to work properly. What if grandma's medical equipment is keeping her comfortable in the back bed room and the neighbor down the street is putting out spurious and illegal transmissions and it affects her equipment???

    Everything is balanced. I do not support anything our Government does honestly but somethings are actually for the good of everyone to enjoy their technology free from avoidable interference.
     
  10. scobar

    scobar .

    Messages:
    34,064
    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2001
    It wasn't reliable, very often if it rebooted=stock config. Different builds never fixed it. Moved to Tomato and it just worked.
     
  11. FLECOM

    FLECOM Modder(ator) & [H]ardest Folder Evar Staff Member

    Messages:
    15,592
    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    as a ham I call bullshit on you since hams are some of the people modifying the 2.4Ghz radios in routers to operate in other parts of the 13cm ham band

    and I *REALLY* doubt you are doing any operation in the ghz bands anyway except maaayyybe 1.2ghz but I doubt you use that either right?
     
  12. /usr/sbin

    /usr/sbin Successfully Trolled by Megalith

    Messages:
    3,927
    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2010
    So your argument is synonymous with "I don't like chocolate so ban it for everyone".

    You do realize tomato is a third party firmware right?
     
  13. wrangler

    wrangler 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,929
    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2005
    Why does he have to be using the 5 or 2.4 ham allocations to be worried about spurious or out of band operation as a ham. Good, clean and legal operation is desirable no matter what.

    I use 5 and 2.4 every day... on my router. If your using unauthorized power or frequencies that diminish my legal operations I want you stopped.

    As for hams using the radios in routers in a modified way to communicate on legal amateur allocations, well, that's ham radio in a nutshell and totally legal. Besides, all of the ham activity at those frequencies are tight beam with parabolic or horn antennas going for distance.

    AD5ZC

    73
     
  14. Red Squirrel

    Red Squirrel [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    9,211
    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2009
    You know democracy is pretty much gone when government starts to restrict what you can do with devices you pay for... well they've been doing it for a while but it seems to be getting worse and worse now days. Making it illegal to use a custom firmware on a router is a pretty major blow to freedom and rights. My fear is that eventually Linux will also be illegal. I could see that eventually happen if companies like Microsoft lobby hard enough.
     
  15. Dion

    Dion 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,723
    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2004
    I moved from DD-WRT to Tomato. I'll never go back.
     
  16. +Eric

    +Eric Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    128
    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2012
    Well also as a ham, I'm not really worried about people modding their wifi stuff. We don't do overselves any favors by blowing the interference out of proportion. A lot of hams are way over sensitive and basically worry warts about it.

    Anyhow, it seems this also negatively affects us if you're interested in HSMM-MESH as a ham.
     
  17. calanthe

    calanthe Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    130
    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Funny, I've had the opposite experience. DD-WRT has been amazingly stable for me across a wide range of hardware. Tomato would never work right the one time I tried it, so I gave up.

    You say "tomato" ... ;)
     
  18. scobar

    scobar .

    Messages:
    34,064
    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2001
    Exactly. This is how society works.
     
  19. tangoseal

    tangoseal [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,703
    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    Edited my comments out. Moot to argue.
     
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2015
  20. tangoseal

    tangoseal [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,703
    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    Edited my comments out... they dont matter anyways
     
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2015
  21. FLECOM

    FLECOM Modder(ator) & [H]ardest Folder Evar Staff Member

    Messages:
    15,592
    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    spurious emissions isn't really the issue the FCC has, it's more of exceeding power... a noisy radio is a noisy radio 3rd party firmware is very unlikely to make a radio become noisy

    additionally if this passes hams won't be able to modify them either if manufactures lock down the radio to the point that nobody can make them operate them out of band or outside of ISM power limitations... I don't think Netgear is going to have a "insert call sign here to change to channel 0 or -1" option
     
  22. Erasmus354

    Erasmus354 [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    9,394
    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2004
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2015